Bounds and dynamics for empirical game theoretic analysis

This paper provides several theoretical results for empirical game theory. Specifically, we introduce bounds for empirical game theoretical analysis of complex multi-agent interactions. In doing so we provide insights in the empirical meta game showing that a Nash equilibrium of the estimated meta-game is an approximate Nash equilibrium of the true underlying meta-game. We investigate and show how many data samples are required to obtain a close enough approximation of the underlying game. Additionally, we extend the evolutionary dynamics analysis of meta-games using heuristic payoff tables (HPTs) to asymmetric games. The state-of-the-art has only considered evolutionary dynamics of symmetric HPTs in which agents have access to the same strategy sets and the payoff structure is symmetric, implying that agents are interchangeable. Finally, we carry out an empirical illustration of the generalised method in several domains, illustrating the theory and evolutionary dynamics of several versions of the AlphaGo algorithm (symmetric), the dynamics of the Colonel Blotto game played by human players on Facebook (symmetric), the dynamics of several teams of players in the capture the flag game (symmetric), and an example of a meta-game in Leduc Poker (asymmetric), generated by the policy-space response oracle multi-agent learning algorithm

A Generalized Training Approach for Multiagent Learning

This paper investigates a population-based training regime based on game-theoretic principles called Policy-Spaced Response Oracles (PSRO). PSRO is general in the sense that it (1) encompasses well-known algorithms such as fictitious play and double oracle as special cases, and (2) in principle applies to general-sum, many-player games. Despite this, prior studies of PSRO have been focused on two-player zero-sum games, a regime wherein Nash equilibria are tractably computable. In moving from two-player zero-sum games to more general settings, computation of Nash equilibria quickly becomes infeasible. Here, we extend the theoretical underpinnings of PSRO by considering an alternative solution concept, $\alpha$-Rank, which is unique (thus faces no equilibrium selection issues, unlike Nash) and applies readily to general-sum, many-player settings. We establish convergence guarantees in several games classes, and identify links between Nash equilibria and $\alpha$-Rank. We demonstrate the competitive performance of $\alpha$-Rank-based PSRO against an exact Nash solver-based PSRO in 2-player Kuhn and Leduc Poker. We then go beyond the reach of prior PSRO applications by considering 3- to 5-player poker games, yielding instances where $\alpha$-Rank achieves faster convergence than approximate Nash solvers, thus establishing it as a favorable general games solver. We also carry out an initial empirical validation in MuJoCo soccer, illustrating the feasibility of the proposed approach in another complex domain

Approximate Analysis of Large Simulation-Based Games.

Game theory offers powerful tools for reasoning about agent behavior and incentives in multi-agent systems. Traditional approaches to game-theoretic analysis require enumeration of all possible strategies and outcomes. This often constrains game models to small numbers of agents and strategies or simple closed-form payoff descriptions. Simulation-based game theory extends the reach of game-theoretic analysis through the use of agent-based modeling. In the simulation-based approach, the analyst describes an environment procedurally and then computes payoffs by simulation of agent interactions in that environment. I use simulation-based game theory to study a model of credit network formation. Credit networks represent trust relationships in a directed graph and have been proposed as a mechanism for distributed transactions without a central currency. I explore what information is important when agents make initial decisions of whom to trust, and what sorts of networks can result from their decisions. This setting demonstrates both the value of simulation-based game theory—extending game-theoretic analysis beyond analytically tractable models—and its limitations—simulations produce prodigious amounts of data, and the number of simulations grows exponentially in the number of agents and strategies. I propose several techniques for approximate analysis of simulation-based games with large numbers of agents and large amounts of simulation data. First, I show how bootstrap-based statistics can be used to estimate confidence bounds on the results of simulation-based game analysis. I show that bootstrap confidence intervals for regret of approximate equilibria are well-calibrated. Next, I describe deviation-preserving reduction, which approximates an environment with a large number of agents using a game model with a small number of players, and demonstrate that it outperforms previous player reductions on several measures. Finally, I employ machine learning to construct game models from sparse data sets, and provide evidence that learned game models can produce even better approximate equilibria in large games than deviation-preserving reduction.PhDComputer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/113587/1/btwied_1.pd

Agent-Based Models for Analyzing Strategic Adaptations to Government Regulation

In many economic systems, participants are unable to internalize social costs. These can be anything from pollution to default risk in financial systems. To deal with these costs, regulators impose limits on the behavior of market participants. These regulations do not always have straightforward effects, and for new regulations a model is required to evaluate them. In this thesis I will perform this modeling task in several domains using a computational agent-based approach. This approach affords two advantages. First, agent-based models can handle intricate models of participant behavior. This is often necessary when participants are operating in a complex domain, using large modeling and computational resources of their own. Second, agent-based models combined with empirical game theoretic analysis (EGTA) can calculate Nash equilibria under new regulations. This addresses in part the Lucas critique of models with regulation, which stipulates that agents can adapt their behavior in ways that break fixed assumptions about agent behavior. I evaluate the overall effects of regulation using metrics appropriate to each domain I study. Using two models of the financial system, one based on an asset market and one based on a debt market, I study Basel regulations which have been criticized for being too simplistic and for actually being counterproductive. I find that in fact, when accounting for the strategic adaptations of banks, Basel regulations are largely beneficial for financial stability. I then examine recent EPA regulations that allow the trading of emissions credits in an attempt to bring down the cost of reducing emissions. I find that while the cost of reducing pollution is reduced as desired, costs to consumers are increased by firms that use emissions trading to coordinate price hikes. In all cases, the use of game-theoretic analysis was crucial to evaluating the effect of regulation.PHDComputer Science & EngineeringUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155192/1/frcheng_1.pd